About node/11967069541 -- where did this data come from, I think this is obsolete since the rebuilding of this area?

Fair enough, just wanted to make sure someone didn't add a new restaurant but the old one was still there, as much as I dislike two restaurants sharing the same cash register... but they are both the same parent company franchiser...

Are these all really closed? I spot checked
way/185707011 and KFC's website still indicates one here -- and coupled with the shops that share a KFC and a TB (I know of one locally, also a KFC that shares a building/cash register with an A&W) -- just wanted to verify whether things are correct...

I also have my doubts that this is a fence. Fences are usually straight and either follow property lines or natural features and this is neither - however it does track something that's being walked upon so that this is some sort of trail at least for part of the way. Clarification is needed.

Hey, you deleted Fort Collins. Reverting.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

TBH I think this isn't such a big deal though prefer it's more than just one structure. Yeah it would be nice it was public (i.e. not access=private) but it is still a playground and it's on the ground, so it gets mapped just like a private road.

Do you remember if you split up the connection between east main street and west main street that was separated at that railway crossing? Was this done by accident or was there a reason for it?

note/4250670

Hi
I don't think the bridge is needed in this case. This location looks like the sidewalk/roads are over a culvert or water tunnel and was fine without the bridge. Actually it's currently wrong to have both a bridge and a culvert (since there's now nothing at level=0) -- probably should revert.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap where contributions are always welcome. However I don't think this is mapped properly - it surely is not a lake. It can be changed to a private swimming pool but the location and size is not available at the moment. Could you change this to a swimming pool and whose pool is it, there are clearly fences around all these lots, and this water is over the fences...

Thanks for adding the business, though I changed it to a veterinary instead of a hospital, seems more fitting.

Hi I was wondering about TX205 and the bend that was placed in it near Equestrian Trail, was this from proprietary satellite imagery or from telemetry data? This looked very strange compared to our available satellite imagery and didn't find any construction projects on this road, perhaps you have documentation about this? Thanks.

Yeah it's been 11 years, but I guess this is why automated renaming is frowned upon, spotted a couple of "Br" abbreviations changed to "Bridge" when it was "Branch" in TIGER ... oh well, not a big deal, human intervention was needed anyway it seems...

Welcome and thanks for contributing to OSM. Just wanted to mention that you seemed to have tagged the road as a bridge. The computer subsequently thought the whole road was a bridge which isn't quite right. To actually add a bridge you should cut the road to the on-dirt and over-water segments and tag only the over-water segments as a bridge. Don't worry about it, it's been corrected now, and you're welcome to take a look at the correction.

Hi, I had to remove one of the bike paths you put down as it was causing validation problems. If there's only one asphalt, there should be just one roadway and that roadway should be tagged with cycleway=lane and other tags if it's only on one side. TBH this would not have been flagged as an error if you didn't overlap the driveable road, so just letting you know how you can improve mapping in the future.

Also way/1184663837 as well.

Could you check the roundabout flare roads like way/1184663842 - are the one way directions correct? (I don't have sat imagery to check, error was sourced from a QC tool.)

I can try to revert the change if possible, but were there other changes in this changeset that should be kept. They could just be disconnected but I suspect someone may reconnect them in the future by mistake so perhaps the revert to parallel slightly offset lines would be best?

Just needed to put the tag on the relation object instead of the way object. I'll go ahead and do it then.

hey, thanks for trying to resolve note/1975179 but I think the tag should be added to object relation/3160247 instead of object way/174701039 perhaps?